Video: Interview with Curtis Bostic

posted at 12:01 pm on March 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this morning, I had an exclusive* interview with Curtis Bostic, one of two candidates in a run-off for the Republican nomination to replace now-Senator Tim Scott in South Carolina’s CD-01. Bostic came in second in the initial round of primary voting last week, forcing top finisher Mark Sanford into a runoff. Sanford at one time held this seat, prior to his two terms as governor and prior to the scandal that pushed him out of public service at the end of his second term. Bostic beat a crowded field that included Ted Turner’s son and a number of other Republicans to square off against Sanford; Bostic joked with me that there were so many candidates that the Post Office assigned the field “our own zip code.”

We discuss the conservative nature of the field and the relative lack of daylight between Bostic and Sanford on the issues. Bostic points to endorsements by both Rick Santorum and Ann Coulter (last night on Twitter) to argue that he is the broader conservative across both fiscal and social policy. We also discussed briefly his role in attracting businesses like Verizon and Boeing to South Carolina, and the electability argument raised by the PPP poll this week.

The run-off is next Tuesday, and Bostic has to make up considerable ground from the first round to pass Sanford. He’s getting plenty of attention, though, and may be poised to pull off a surprise.

* – Using the media definition of “exclusive,” which is that there was no one else on the phone call.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

(Reuters) – The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation’s broadest school voucher program, which gives poor and middle-class families public funds to help pay private school tuition.

Opponents, including the state teachers’ union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn criticism across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and subsidize overtly religious education. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents – and not the state – decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

I still don’t understand how. In order to sue, you have to have standing. The case they took involved a couple that was married in Canada- and even if DOMA hadn’t been legal; they are suing on the basis that she had to pay federal taxes on her partners death and was living in New York. New York didn’t recognize gay marriage at the time, so it didn’t matter whether or not DOMA was legal, she still would have had to pay taxes.

Furthermore, if they strike it down based on this case, they are also saying that the US can’t decide which FOREIGN marriages it can recognize. Welcome Muslim polygamists and 9 year old brides.

The Progressive march through the institutions is nearly a done deal. Roberts’ ruling last year signaled the end. The higher the institution, the less chance of liberty, reason, tradition ever winning again. The answers and the fight must come from the ground up.

I still want an answer to potential for a Bi-Sexual marriage. Will SSM cause a limitation of only spouse- even for someone who was born to go both ways? Won’t that be discriminating for them ? and cause them to have to cheat on their “marriage” vow to enjoy the broadest range of their sexual norm?

For me – Marriage HAS to be defined as 1male-1female ONLY spousal arrangement- and ALL other forms -and there are many– of “togetherness” be deemed as a “union” with all the same legal qualities they are looking for.

Bostic was a big spender on Charleston County Council and has never introduced a reform or proposed a cut – and still hasn’t, even for federal spending.

He represents the old guard SC GOP establishment, which always hated Sanford for his vetoes, anti-pork stances, and reform proposals that interfered with their business as usual. Outsiders should not be confused by BS.

As to “electability,” the Democratic nominee got over 90% of the vote and barely out-polled Bostic, who finished second with 14% of the GOP vote. This is a solid GOP district, especially in a special election, and anyone who supposes the seat will be lost is either stupid, crazy, or just lying.

The only question is do voters want to return a guy to Congress who was the only Member to return office expense money to the Treasury every year he was there, and fight against waste and pork, or an establishment drone.

The runoff election between these 2 Republican candidates is on Tuesday April 2.

When the choice is between a Marine who served in Desert Storm (Curtis Bostic) and a former Governor (Mark Sanford) who left his wife and sons to go have an affair in Argentina, I’ll pick the Marine every time. Character matters!

Thanks for the debate info, Bostic is OK but not one to go against the flow just like many of the GOBs (good old boy) Reps in SC, a more worthless hive of villainy is difficult to imagine! They are mostly a bunch of scalawags, better than most of the other D=Rat Party. I’ll stick w/ Sanford has the PROVEN fiscally responsible Congress critter. I can’t blame the man for taking a flyer on some good South American split-tail.